BC_chick Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Even though I know the reality of a nuclear-free world is too good to be true, I can't believe a US president is finally saying the obvious. PRAGUE (Reuters) – President Barack Obama will call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons across the globe, in remarks on Sunday he hopes will lend credibility to his message in atomic disputes with Iran and North Korea.Visiting Prague during an eight-day visit to Europe, Obama plans to deliver what his aides have billed as a major speech on weapons proliferation. Obama, who is making his debut on the world stage, said in Strasbourg, France on Friday that he would lay out an agenda to secure the world's loose nuclear materials and halt the spread of illicit weapons. He added that he wanted to offer an agenda "to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons." link The NPT came into effect to free the world of nuclear weapons, it called for nuclear countries to disarm while other non-nuclear signatories agreed not to develop the weapons. When nuclear countries have not fulfilled their end of the bargain with the agreement, it is at the height of hypocrisy to hold other countries accountable to the same agreement. I have never liked the idea of a nuclear arms race, but I dislike more the idea of two sets of rules for this world. Bravo to President Obama for this move, I know it is more symbolic than anything, but it is nonetheless very significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Bravo to President Obama for this move, I know it is more symbolic than anything, but it is nonetheless very significant. Yes, it is a very symbolic sentiment that costs nothing to say. Obama is not the first president to say such things, and he won't be the last. But it is a good opportunity to update stockpiles with fewer but more reliable warheads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Obama calls for nuclear-free world, About time someone did. And with Obama's influence, I'm calling for a world made of chocolate roads, and money made out of ice cream. Bravo Mr. President! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Good, I'd like to see a large reduction in stockpiles of nuclear weapons right around the country. However I doubt the US will ever be completely rid of nukes, I'd say they should keep a couple just to act as a deterrent more than anything else. Their is no reason for their to be thousands of nuclear weapons stockpiles in todays world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Yes, it is a very symbolic sentiment that costs nothing to say. Obama is not the first president to say such things, and he won't be the last.Exactly, but they are empty words.Why would North Korea or Iran (for example) agree honestly to such a restriction? We are dealing with people who are willing to hijack airplanes and fly them into big buildings. They will comandeer boats in the open sea, kill everyone aboard and then use the boat to arrive in port and slaughter as many people as they can. Such people might officially agree to a "nuclear-free world" but it is entirely in their interest to use (or credibly threaten to use) a nuclear weapon against ordinary westerners. In Beirut, such people exploded car bombs on random streets. Obama is not so stupid as to think that his call will change anything. Russia/China are not nuclear threats to the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Nicholas Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 The American Corporatocracy needs another war to distract from the abject failures of the war on drugs, and the war on terrorism, and the war on communism... Now the war on nukes. In a world like ours, where Mutually Assured Destruction is no longer a guarantee of our safety, it's a wonder any of us can sleep at night. What if every country had nukes, and every country had missile defense systems? Would that mean trillions of dollars wasted on defense? Imagine if there were no countries... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 The American Corporatocracy needs another war to distract from the abject failures of the war on drugs, and the war on terrorism, and the war on communism... Now the war on nukes. ...and the War on Poverty. In a world like ours, where Mutually Assured Destruction is no longer a guarantee of our safety, it's a wonder any of us can sleep at night. What's the alternative.....Sominex tablets? What if every country had nukes, and every country had missile defense systems? Would that mean trillions of dollars wasted on defense? No more that greater amounts "wasted" on health care. Imagine if there were no countries... I think John Lennon already milked that idea for millions of dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Bravo to President Obama for this move, I know it is more symbolic than anything, but it is nonetheless very significant. symbolic and hence insignificant... much like a UN pronouncement... Do we know that Obama is really committed to this premise? we can't really know right?... so yeah this scores a ZERO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 The NPT came into effect to free the world of nuclear weapons, it called for nuclear countries to disarm while other non-nuclear signatories agreed not to develop the weapons.Nuclear weapons are the best thing that ever happened to war. They raised the consequences of a major conflict between major powers to a level that ensures that such a conflict will never happen. Now there is a risk that some nut bar states will get a hold of nuke. But that risk exists even if the major powers did not have any nukes. This fact makes Obama's musings not only naive - but downright dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 Obama is, as usual, spouting words he thinks his audience would like to hear. I am beginning to think he is quite dangerously naive on a few important subjects. One being economics and the other human behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 That Genie is out of the lamp forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 That Genie is out of the lamp forever. Yeah....I can imagine the Hittites asking the same questions about irin weapons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 All I can say, chick, is tell it to North Korea and Iran. And Russia, for that matter. Obama was just playing to the crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 All I can say, chick, is tell it to North Korea and Iran. And Russia, for that matter. Obama was just playing to the crowd. President Obama can actually have an impact on such things, especially given fiscal realities. So one would expect cancelation or procurement reductions for weapons systems projects a la President Carter (e.g. B-1 bomber). I expect to see Obama to try to re-engage the START process, even in the face of NATO expansion; maybe embrace the ABM Treaty as a bargaining chip and save a boatload of money. Tough to do in the face of Iran/DPRK ambitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 It not up to any nation its takes all nations that have them and I don't think, Israel, Pakistan, India, AND the US will ever give up their nukes, unless its done by delivering to another nation. Only by a nuclear war will nations part with their bombs, and since that won't happen then the "One World Order" could never come to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Bravo to President Obama for this move, I know it is more symbolic than anything, but it is nonetheless very significant. Why cheer someone on for something that will never happen? Obama is the master of just sending out crap to his fanbase that he has no hope of ever accomplishing. Better yet, they love him for it. "Everyone will get great medicare, lower taxes, nicer houses, better schools and a pony!" WOOOHOOOO!!! "Because we CAN!" Oh ya? This guys is seriously so full of it. I hadn't heard this lastest Christ-like proclaimation, so thanks for showing me that he really is so into himself that he's a threat to the stability of the entire world. Next he'll end hungry in Africa by proclaimation. Plan? None. But Obama said so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Based on Obama's strong track record of action, I believe this proclamation will lead to some form of action, not the least of which will be the reduction of the American stockpile of nukes. Of course, this won't be enough for some, "its pointless" for others, etc... But anyone who thinks these are empty words that will lead to no action hasn't been watching Obama closely so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Even though I know the reality of a nuclear-free world is too good to be true, I can't believe a US president is finally saying the obvious. link The NPT came into effect to free the world of nuclear weapons, it called for nuclear countries to disarm while other non-nuclear signatories agreed not to develop the weapons. When nuclear countries have not fulfilled their end of the bargain with the agreement, it is at the height of hypocrisy to hold other countries accountable to the same agreement. I have never liked the idea of a nuclear arms race, but I dislike more the idea of two sets of rules for this world. Bravo to President Obama for this move, I know it is more symbolic than anything, but it is nonetheless very significant. blah blah blah... more empty verbiage and hot air ... meaningless drivel to make the American sheeple bleat. haven't you people learned anythign yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 But anyone who thinks these are empty words that will lead to no action hasn't been watching Obama closely so far. I watched him him close enough to see him lose funding to close Gitmo down because he didn't have a plan. Empty words of hope and change didn't get him past a Democratic run House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I watched him him close enough to see him lose funding to close Gitmo down because he didn't have a plan. Empty words of hope and change didn't get him past a Democratic run House. Words aren't empty if he tried something. There is a huge difference between talking and trying to make change, as opposed to just talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Words aren't empty if he tried something. There is a huge difference between talking and trying to make change, as opposed to just talking. Talking with no plan = pie in the sky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Words aren't empty if he tried something. There is a huge difference between talking and trying to make change, as opposed to just talking. talking with no action= talking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 talking with no action= talking... No talking or consideration = no action - influence is action - If you can plant a seed of possitive change in a person with a mere word then you have done your job and you have brought about an action. What do you think action is? Some Maoist type of action with a slogan that reads " power comes from the barrel of a gun" ? You either have the gift of influence within your oratory - or you in the alternative are dependent on action (VIOLENCE) - even a monkey can be full of action....Monkey with no talking = action - but the wrong kind - the ineffective kind of action - who's results is not lasting but satisfying to the base and violent hateful human animal - nope---- you are either a communicator or a killer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 No talking or consideration = no action - influence is action - If you can plant a seed of possitive change in a person with a mere word then you have done your job and you have brought about an action. What do you think action is? Some Maoist type of action with a slogan that reads " power comes from the barrel of a gun" ? You either have the gift of influence within your oratory - or you in the alternative are dependent on action (VIOLENCE) - even a monkey can be full of action....Monkey with no talking = action - but the wrong kind - the ineffective kind of action - who's results is not lasting but satisfying to the base and violent hateful human animal - nope---- you are either a communicator or a killer... The talking about closing Gitmo was just that. When he went to act with just talk, congress said 'no tickee, no laundry.' No plan = no action with pie in the sky as the strategic result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Even though I know the reality of a nuclear-free world is too good to be true, I can't believe a US president is finally saying the obvious. link The NPT came into effect to free the world of nuclear weapons, it called for nuclear countries to disarm while other non-nuclear signatories agreed not to develop the weapons. When nuclear countries have not fulfilled their end of the bargain with the agreement, it is at the height of hypocrisy to hold other countries accountable to the same agreement. I have never liked the idea of a nuclear arms race, but I dislike more the idea of two sets of rules for this world. Bravo to President Obama for this move, I know it is more symbolic than anything, but it is nonetheless very significant. Yawn .......... Pass the fried chicken please. Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.